Citation Nr: 9928916
Decision Date: 10/06/99 Archive Date: 10/15/99
DOCKET NO. 91-22 462 ) DATE
)
)
Received from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Huntington, West Virginia
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye
disorder.
2. Entitlement to service connection for tinea pedis.
3. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle
disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Inc.
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C. Schlosser, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active military service from June 1962 to
January 1970.
This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 1990 rating decision in
which the Los Angeles, California RO denied service
connection for a left eye disorder, a right ankle disorder, a
right foot disorder and tinea pedis.
By rating decision of November 1998, the RO granted service
connection for a right foot disorder. Consequently, this
issue is no longer before the Board.
In January 1999, the veteran moved to West Virginia and his
appeal has been processed through the Huntington, West
Virginia RO since that date.
REMAND
As noted above, this case originally came before the Board
from a June 1990 rating decision in which the Los Angeles,
California RO denied service connection for a left eye
disorder, a right ankle disorder, a right foot disorder and
tinea pedis. The veteran appealed and was afforded a hearing
before a panel of three members of the Board at the RO in
March 1991. The case was remanded by the Board for
evidentiary development in October 1991. By letter of August
18, 1999, the veteran and his representative were advised
that none of the board members who had conducted the March
1991 hearing was still employed by the Board and, therefore,
could not participate in the decision on appeal pursuant to
the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (1999). The veteran was
asked whether he desired a new hearing. In a response
received at the Board in September 1999, the veteran
expressed his desire to have a Board hearing at the RO before
a member of the Board. He specifically indicated that he
would be incapacitated and unable to attend any travel board
hearing from October 25 through November 5, 1999.
Against this background, the case is REMANDED to the RO for
the following action:
The RO should schedule a hearing for the
appellant before a member of the Board at
the RO.
After the hearing has been held, the case should be returned
to the Board for further consideration. No action is
required of the appellant until he receives further notice
from the RO.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board or by the Court for further development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L.
No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes).
In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part
IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all
cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court.
See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
MARK F. HALSEY
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a
decision of the Board is appealable to the Court. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1999).